POSTCODE DEPRIVATION

Deprivation measures are widely used, and misused, to explain health inequality. Used because so many health outcomes have got an uneven social distribution. Misused because the areas units the measures are available at are not homogenous, i.e. you do not necessarily share socio-economic characteristics with everyone else living in your area. This error is often described as the ecological fallacy in the geographical, sociological and epidemiological literature.

Usually area-based measures are used as proxy for the socio-economic status of the individual. First, because we rarely have information about personal income and similar individual information. Second, because of place poverty considerations. This makes the accuracy of area-based deprivation coding all the more pertinent.

One way to reduce the effects of ecological fallacy is to obtain information at a finer geographical level. Geodemographic classifications offer national systems with groups that share characteristics at postcode and even household level.

This also allows for modelled income estimates at household level that can be used to uncover pockets of relative poverty in socio-economically diverse areas (Petersen 2005).

We may also soon see multiple deprivation indices offered with geodemographic classifications. In the present work we have explored the possibilities offered with Mosaic UK and its ranking to Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). This idea was first applied to a population health study by Bhatti (Bhatti 2005).

The map shows how this may be used 'unlock' deprivation coding down to postcode level. From the map it is evident how some areas can be very heterogeneous below the level at which IMD is available (LSOA area units with an average of 1500 population).

Mosaic UK Indices of Multiple Deprivation (ID2004) ranking. [TOP]
Type A03 Corporate Chieftains is found in the least deprived areas in the UK and Type F40 Sharing a Staircase in the most deprived areas.

IMD Rank	Mosaic UK Type	IMD Rank	Mosaic UK Type
1	A03 Corporate Chieftains	32	E32 Dinky Developments
2	A04 Golden Empty Nesters	33	J56 Tourist Attendants
3	A06 High Technologists	34	E31 Caring Professionals
4	B14 In Military Quarters	35	B13 Burdened Optimists
5	B10 Upscale New Owners	36	E29 City Adventurers
6	A07 Semi-Rural Seclusion	37	B08 Just Movin+I4g In
7	A05 Provincial Privilege	38	D23 Industrial Grit
8	K58 Greenbelt Guardians	39	E33 Town Gown Transition
9	C15 Close to Retirement	40	H45 Older Right to Buy
10	J53 High Spending Elders	41	H46 White Van Culture
11	K61 Upland Hill Farmers	42	C20 Asian Enterprise
12	B11 Families Making Good	43	I49 Low Income Elderly
13	B09 Fledgling Nurseries	44	I50 Cared for Pensioners
14	K60 Pastoral Symphony	45	D25 Town Centre Refuge
15	A02 Cultural Leadership	46	H44 Rustbelt Resilience
16	C19 Original Suburbs	47	H47 New Town Materialism
17	C16 Conservative Values	48	D24 Coronation Street
18	C17 Small Time Business	49	F35 Bedsit Beneficiaries
19	B12 Middle Rung Families	50	E28 Counter Cultural Mix
20	K59 Parochial Villagers	51	D27 Settled Minorities
21	C18 Sprawling Subtopia	52	I48 Old People in Flats
22	K57 Summer Playgrounds	53	G43 Ex-industrial Legacy
23	A01 Global Connections	54	F37 Upper Floor Families
24	J54 Bungalow Retirement	55	F39 Dignified Dependency
25	J52 Childfree Serenity	56	F36 Metro Multiculture
26	E30 New Urban Colonists	57	D26 South Asian Industry
27	E34 University Challenge	58	G41 Families on Benefits
28	D21 Respectable Rows	59	G42 Low Horizons
29	J51 Sepia Memories	60	F38 Tower Block Living
30	D22 Affluent Blue Collar	61	F40 Sharing a Staircase
31	J55 Small Town Seniors

Source: Experian 2005

REFERENCES [TOP]
Bhatti, S. S. 2005. Unlocking local inequalities. In Socialist Health Association Conference on the Black Report. Manchester: URL.
Petersen, J. 2005. Hidden rural deprivation - a disease clustering approach, Birkbeck College, University of London, London.